PHILIPPINE DEVELOPMENT AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EQUITABLE PCI BANK (NOW KNOWN AS BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.), THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA, AND M.N. AMOR B. DAIT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.

Ruling

accordingly issued by Sheriff Dait. [27] Thereafter, manifesting that EPCIB had already foreclosed the mortgaged properties, PDIC moved to withdraw its amended complaint for release of mortgage and limited its cause of action to one for damages. [28] On June 16, 2003, while the case for Damages was pending before the RTC Makati, PDIC filed before the RTC of City of Manila, Branch 36 [29] (RTC Manila) a Complaint [30] for annulment of mortgage and foreclosure sale with application for TRO and preliminary injunction against EPCIB, the Register of Deeds of City of Manila, and Sheriff Dait. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 03-106886. [31] In its complaint, PDIC alleged that the subject REMs dated June 8, 2000 are void. These were allegedly executed against its will and were merely consummated on account of EPCIB's machinations by using its advantaged position as PDIC was then not in a position to refuse. [32] According to PDIC, EPCIB's unjustified refusal to release any amount from the secured credit line, coupled with the period of time it consumed in finding alternative financing sources, substantially delayed the construction of the project. [33] PDIC averred that since it was not able to avail of any amount from the secured credit line, it demanded for the release of the owner's duplicate title of TCT No. 230861, then in the possession of EPCIB. However, despite repeated requests, EPCIB refused to release the mother title to PDIC unless it executes a substitute REM covering the 29 units of the condominium project and Bulacan property. Thus, owing to the need for the cancellation of the mortgage on TCT No. 230861 to complete the project and allow PDIC to sell the condominium units, and the fact that certain fully-paid buyers had threatened to file civil and criminal cases against PDIC and its officers, PDIC was constrained to accede to EPCIB's demand and executed the subject REMs. [34] PDIC contended that EPCIB used intimidation and undue influence in the execution of the new REMs, which thus, effectively vitiated its consent. [35] PDIC then prayed that: (1) immediately upon filing the case, a TRO be issued, enjoining EPCIB and the Register of Deeds of Manila from proceeding with the consolidation of EPCIB's title over the subject properties; (2) after due hearing, a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) be issued, enjoining EPCIB and the Register of Deeds of Manila from proceeding with the consolidation of EPCIB's title over the subject properties; (3) after due trial, judgment be rendered, declaring the REMs dated June 8, 2000 and the foreclosure of the subject properties on April 21, 2003 null and void, among others. [36] Thereupon, the RTC Manila issued a 72-hour TRO, enjoining EPCIB and the Register of Deeds of Manila from proceeding with the consolidation of EPCIB's title over the 29 condominium units and the Bulacan property, and from taking possession thereof. On June 20, 2003, after conducting a summary hearing, the RTC Manila issue